[SHOP US, SHIP KOREA] From $7.50 (1LB) + $1.74 per pound only! Use the Ohmyzip U.S. a tax-free state address as your shipping address at checkout. Sign up now to get a 10% off coupon on shipping. <Freight Forwarding Service / Courier Service>

Author
Topic: Starbucks to Close 8,000 U.S. Stores for Racial-Bias Training After Arrests (Read 3330 times)

"Starbucks said on Tuesday that it would close its more than 8,000 stores in the United States for one day to conduct anti-bias training after two African-American men were arrested at one of its stores last week, prompting outrage....

"The two men were arrested after asking to use the restroom at a Starbucks in Philadelphia. An employee refused the request because the men had not bought anything, according to officials. The men sat down and were asked to leave, and an employee eventually called the police....

"The training will address implicit bias, the company said on Tuesday, with input from groups including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Anti-Defamation League....

A business should be able to kick out people who are not paying customers. The men would not have been arrested if they had simply left when asked to do so. Some people, however, prefer to blame racism for anything bad that happens to them rather than take responsibility for their choices.

What a mess this situation is. I'm big on the belief that if you're not buying something, then GTFO. If they were waiting for a friend to come, and they were staying there, they should have bought coffee first and had a seat.

I don't mean buy first as a hard rule. It's ultimately up to the owners/managers. Just drive me nuts when I go eat somewhere and invite a couple of friends and they don't order anything. Sure, I'd be taking up space at a four seat table by myself anyway, so it's not like they're talking up any EXTRA room. But a restaurant isn't the community centre, or an E-mart for that matter. At an E-mart, you can window shop, or at least pretend to. At a restaurant or a cafe, the question is, if you don't want curry, then get out of the curry restaurant.

That said, being arrested for waiting for your friend sucks so bad. Why couldn't they just stand around outside though? Or get a damn cookie or something?

Here's the thing, though, Starbucks has an actual statement in their policy that anyone is permitted to enter any of their establishments and NOT order a thing. That's one.

Two, it's an incredibly common practice across pretty much the entire States for people to meet up at cafes and to wait for their party before ordering anything. The location in question is not an exception to this, and the manager/employees should have backed off once the men said that they were waiting on friends before ordering.

The men may have been able to do something to "de-escalate" the situation, but the question is, should they have had to? They weren't the one escalating the situation to begin with.

What a mess this situation is. I'm big on the belief that if you're not buying something, then GTFO. If they were waiting for a friend to come, and they were staying there, they should have bought coffee first and had a seat.

Right. If you're going to take up space in a private restaurant/cafe, you should buy something. If you want to use the restroom in a private restaurant/cafe, you should buy something. And being arrested for this is stupid, there at least should have been a warning that they were going to call the police, so they should have just left after that.

Wondering about how this actually went down. How did they act, were they polite or rude? If they were polite, I would be suspicious of racism. If they were acting awful, well, this seems like the only logical option. You're trying to just get through your shift, people are being rude, loitering in your store, seems like the obvious choice.

There was more to it than these guys just refusing to leave and wanting to bum off their bathroom. They were waiting for a friend, told the barista as much, and then were arrested. I can think of a few times that I have done the same thing. I can think of a few times as well were I just used their bathroom and never bought anything at all. I think it just comes down to not assuming the worst.

@Chinguetti- I believe in the article I read on it a few days ago, the situation was never escalated in the beginning. The other people in the Starbucks said that they never shouted or anything, just said that they were waiting. They didn't fight the police either, that was their friend who protested on their behalf (since he had shown up be the time the cops did).

@Chinguetti- I believe in the article I read on it a few days ago, the situation was never escalated in the beginning. The other people in the Starbucks said that they never shouted or anything, just said that they were waiting. They didn't fight the police either, that was their friend who protested on their behalf (since he had shown up be the time the cops did).

That's basically what I meant. The situation escalated to the men getting arrested and escorted out of the Starbucks, but they literally did nothing to lead up to that. All they did was not order something right away, and told the manager or whomever that they weren't planning to order until their friend showed up. Some people are saying that they should have ordered something as soon as the location asked them to, as if that might have prevented their arrest in the first place, and maybe it would've, but that doesn't mean they started this whole thing by not ordering or that the location's actions against them were reasonable or justified. They were literally within their right and weren't being rude or unreasonable about it. It was a normal, everyday thing that escalated into the story of the week.

It's not an arrestable offense to loiter, but once you're asked to leave and you refuse to do so, it becomes trespassing and officers can then be called to act at that time.

Cases like this can get complicated, but in this case the men had a right to be there and there was no legitimate reason for the employee(s) to have behaved the way she/they had. She didn't want them there and took steps to make it an unfriendly environment for them. Makes this case in particular very cut and dry.

Article says the employee who made the phone call in the first place is no longer working there. Nice way of saying she was fired, lol.

What a mess this situation is. I'm big on the belief that if you're not buying something, then GTFO. If they were waiting for a friend to come, and they were staying there, they should have bought coffee first and had a seat.

I don't mean buy first as a hard rule. It's ultimately up to the owners/managers. Just drive me nuts when I go eat somewhere and invite a couple of friends and they don't order anything. Sure, I'd be taking up space at a four seat table by myself anyway, so it's not like they're talking up any EXTRA room. But a restaurant isn't the community centre, or an E-mart for that matter. At an E-mart, you can window shop, or at least pretend to. At a restaurant or a cafe, the question is, if you don't want curry, then get out of the curry restaurant.

That said, being arrested for waiting for your friend sucks so bad. Why couldn't they just stand around outside though? Or get a damn cookie or something?

First, I think this was obvious discrimination and there was no need to call the cops.

Second, what's up with people (of all races and nationalities) being bums by loitering in coffee shops? Are there any coffee shops out there that ban that sort of thing? I'd like to keep track so I know where to go to avoid the riff-raff. In fact, maybe a coffee shop that has a cover charge so there's no milennials soaking up wi-fi or screaming adolescents. If you want to use a coffee shop, order some damn coffee or get out you bums. If you want the loving arms of free stuff, go use the McDonald's bathroom or loiter in the bus terminal.

Second, what's up with people (of all races and nationalities) being bums by loitering in coffee shops? Are there any coffee shops out there that ban that sort of thing? I'd like to keep track so I know where to go to avoid the riff-raff. In fact, maybe a coffee shop that has a cover charge so there's no milennials soaking up wi-fi or screaming adolescents. If you want to use a coffee shop, order some damn coffee or get out you bums.

@Chinguetti- I believe in the article I read on it a few days ago, the situation was never escalated in the beginning. The other people in the Starbucks said that they never shouted or anything, just said that they were waiting. They didn't fight the police either, that was their friend who protested on their behalf (since he had shown up be the time the cops did).

That's basically what I meant. The situation escalated to the men getting arrested and escorted out of the Starbucks, but they literally did nothing to lead up to that. All they did was not order something right away, and told the manager or whomever that they weren't planning to order until their friend showed up. Some people are saying that they should have ordered something as soon as the location asked them to, as if that might have prevented their arrest in the first place, and maybe it would've, but that doesn't mean they started this whole thing by not ordering or that the location's actions against them were reasonable or justified. They were literally within their right and weren't being rude or unreasonable about it. It was a normal, everyday thing that escalated into the story of the week.

Oh, sorry, I understand. When I read escalated, I jumped to them fighting the caller or against the police.

Here's the thing, though, Starbucks has an actual statement in their policy that anyone is permitted to enter any of their establishments and NOT order a thing. That's one.

Two, it's an incredibly common practice across pretty much the entire States for people to meet up at cafes and to wait for their party before ordering anything. The location in question is not an exception to this, and the manager/employees should have backed off once the men said that they were waiting on friends before ordering.

The men may have been able to do something to "de-escalate" the situation, but the question is, should they have had to? They weren't the one escalating the situation to begin with.

Good riddance if it happens. I certainly won't be patronizing Starbucks anymore when in the US. The author thinks the men who were arrested will receive a multi-million dollar settlement. That's insane.